Archaea are formed from a combination of bacteria and eukaryotes? Not likely... General consensus is that Eukaryotes are formed from a combination of a bacteria and something that was more closely related to ancestral archaea. From my knowledge modern molecular analysis has continued to support this notion.

Any respectable hypothesis that would look to counter the consensus would need to explain the general relatedness of all living things (why even the most distantly related still share a very significant number of genes).

Common ancestor of all multicellular organisms were reasonable Myxomycetes. They managed to create a special company - the state, which then degenerated into a multicellular Myxomycetes. This Myxomycetes once had his eyes with the lens, touch, hearing, taste, brain, etc.http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... ge_id%3D82

paradigm wrote:The idea of a single universal ancestor of all biology on Earth is mistaken.

Early eukaryotes and early bacteria evolved independently and later combined to form archaea.

Not likely. If you wish to posit that they evolved independently, then the onus is on you to explain why they share so much in common at the molecular-biological level, starting with the (nearly, but with a few exceptions) Universal Genetic Code. Do you have a biochemical model which suggests that the code associations are the result of laws of biochemistry and that such a code is inevitable? Can you refute the null hypothesis that suggests that at least some code associations were the result of "fixed accidents"?

Does your independent evolution idea have an explanation for the same holochirality of certain molecules (namely carbohydrates and amino acids) among the two?

What about the similarities and evidence that suggest that, despite the fact they do use the same type of phospholipids for membranes (glycerol-ester lipids) as eubacteria (which is probably from HGT from the endosymbiosis that lead to mitochondria), Eukarya appears to have originated from within the Archaea?

In short, is there anything in your model that simplifies it and gives it better explanatory power than the "Universal Common Ancestor" theory? Does your model have any predictive or retrodictive power by suggesting things to look for that would be evidence for this model?

If you want to come out and posit something like that, essentially overturning what is already a very fitting explanation for a very large body of evidence, you are going to not only need to explain the existing evidence but also provide some rather extraordinary evidence which suggests your model is better.

paradigm wrote:This is represented with the paradigm which specifies construction and evolution across cosmology and biology.

Care to put that into layman's terms? I skimmed the biology section and it looks less like biology than it does numerology? I haven't read the whole thing, but it set of a lot of alarms in my pseudoscience detectors.

"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks